TheSeaLocust's 1L Anxiety Meditation Retreat & Spa Forum

[Pretzel_Logic]

I don't full understand how to outline. I don't really get what it should be. Break down the sections into headings, then insert BLL and case holdings and all the "checklist" type items we have for each heading? Isn't this all already in my class/case notes? Why does it take so goddamn long apparently? Is it too late to become a dentist?

I used old outlines until I figured it out. It gets easier/faster.

[desiballa21]

Thoughts on relying more heavily on supplements and nutshells for Torts rather than on casebook? The professor seems to just want argument more than anything-- argue both sides and don't just quote him doctrine for exams is what he says. The thing is, in class I feel like all the rules (proximate cause, but-for, scope-of-risk) get convoluted when learned through cases.

[Br3v]

Thoughts on relying more heavily on supplements and nutshells for Torts rather than on casebook? The professor seems to just want argument more than anything-- argue both sides and don't just quote him doctrine for exams is what he says. The thing is, in class I feel like all the rules (proximate cause, but-for, scope-of-risk) get convoluted when learned through cases.

Where are you getting nutshells btw? The actual book series or online?

[desiballa21]

Thoughts on relying more heavily on supplements and nutshells for Torts rather than on casebook? The professor seems to just want argument more than anything-- argue both sides and don't just quote him doctrine for exams is what he says. The thing is, in class I feel like all the rules (proximate cause, but-for, scope-of-risk) get convoluted when learned through cases.

Where are you getting nutshells btw? The actual book series or online?

Not the series but I've got the book.. realllly cool 2L chick hooked me up w/ all her 1L stuff so I got lucky.. she said it helped her a lot fwiw.

[thesealocust]

I don't full understand how to outline. I don't really get what it should be. Break down the sections into headings, then insert BLL and case holdings and all the "checklist" type items we have for each heading? Isn't this all already in my class/case notes? Why does it take so goddamn long apparently? Is it too late to become a dentist?

It's too early to really understand. It's mostly about organizing and condensing and assimilating and processing information.

Thanks for this, SeaLocust

You're very welcome!

Thoughts on relying more heavily on supplements and nutshells for Torts rather than on casebook? The professor seems to just want argument more than anything-- argue both sides and don't just quote him doctrine for exams is what he says. The thing is, in class I feel like all the rules (proximate cause, but-for, scope-of-risk) get convoluted when learned through cases.

Varies class to class, prof to prof, and importantly honrbook to hornbook. It can be easy to learn law "wrong" from hornbooks because your prof only cares about the law as he/she taught it, not as Farnsworth wrote about it.

[skers]

Thoughts on relying more heavily on supplements and nutshells for Torts rather than on casebook? The professor seems to just want argument more than anything-- argue both sides and don't just quote him doctrine for exams is what he says. The thing is, in class I feel like all the rules (proximate cause, but-for, scope-of-risk) get convoluted when learned through cases.

That's the point. That's how you argue and how you do well on an exam. You walk through the convoluted stuff. Like x case this could be x or like y case this could be y, ect.

[Easy-E]

I don't full understand how to outline. I don't really get what it should be. Break down the sections into headings, then insert BLL and case holdings and all the "checklist" type items we have for each heading? Isn't this all already in my class/case notes? Why does it take so goddamn long apparently? Is it too late to become a dentist?

It's too early to really understand. It's mostly about organizing and condensing and assimilating and processing information.

I mean I've got a decent overview of my classes at this point (except Ks), I've looked at outlines and I sort of get what it should contain, I just don't understand why everyone says it takes so long.

[radar714]

I haven't been on TLS in what feels like ages b/c of the stress, and this thread was exactly what I needed

thanks guys

[nickb285]

.

[Lawst]

Just got done writing my answer to a sample problem for torts. Professor told us to take around two hours and write as much as we could. Took a little longer than the time limit, but not by too much, and wrote 2700 words. Was feeling kind of exhausted but pretty happy with my answer. Then made the mistake of looking at the practice test from last year. This question was on it, along with three others, and there was a time limit of three hours, meaning 45 minutes per question. Closed book, no notes.


FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--

It'll be OK - the curve takes, but the curve also gives. Others will be in the same boat.

[Dolphine]

Today was my first real freak out day, in my conference my memo got torn apart, I have another conference with the TA on friday and need to pretty much rewrite my memo to get anything useful out of it, and for the first time this semester I'm completely lost in contracts....HELP I AM FREAKING OUT.

[thesealocust]

Just got done writing my answer to a sample problem for torts. Professor told us to take around two hours and write as much as we could. Took a little longer than the time limit, but not by too much, and wrote 2700 words. Was feeling kind of exhausted but pretty happy with my answer. Then made the mistake of looking at the practice test from last year. This question was on it, along with three others, and there was a time limit of three hours, meaning 45 minutes per question. Closed book, no notes.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--

You'll get faster, and the exams are designed to be impossible to complete in anything like the allotted time. As long as you're ready for that, it will be O.K. - believe me, even people who crush the exam often walk out feeling defeated because there's too much to grapple with. It's how professors manage to get a good distribution, and it's harsh, but you'll be fine.

Today was my first real freak out day, in my conference my memo got torn apart, I have another conference with the TA on friday and need to pretty much rewrite my memo to get anything useful out of it, and for the first time this semester I'm completely lost in contracts....HELP I AM FREAKING OUT.

You have plenty of time! Everybody is lost, everybody gets their first memo torn apart. You're going to get to the point where you feel like you should - or need - to have your bearings before you get your bearings. It's part of the unfairness of law school, but you're not doing anything wrong and it will all work out.

[guano]

Just got done writing my answer to a sample problem for torts.

Then I guess it's not too early for this:
(I take no credit for this, but I don't remember where I got it from )


Sample Question:

A park has a sign which states "no vehicles are allowed in the park." John enters the park with a tricycle. Discuss whether John has violated the statute.

- - - - - - - - - -

Crappy answer:

The issue is whether or not a tricycle will qualify as a vehicle for purposes of the sign. The sign states that no vehicles are allowed in the park. John entered the park on a tricycle, which is a vehicle. Therefore John has violated the park's rule.

Note the lovely IRAC, the conclusory analysis that goes where the analysis should be, and the number of words wasted without doing any analysis. This answer might be worth a point.

- - - - - - - - - -

Decent answer:

The issue is whether or not a tricycle will qualify as a vehicle for purposes of the sign. The sign states that no vehicles are allowed in the park. John entered the park on a tricycle, which is designed to transport a human rider, and thus likely a vehicle. Therefore John has probably violated the park's rule because the sign clearly forbids entry of any vehicles, and under nearly any standard definition a tricycle would constitute a vehicle.

This comes much closer to real analysis. It's still a little conclusory and still not getting as deep into policy and counterarguments as it could, but it's accomplished - at a minimum level - what an exam needs to accomplish, and will get at least a point or two.

- - - - - - - - - -

Good answer:

An issue will be whether a tricycle counts as a vehicle. John will argue that it does not, at least not within the meaning of the sign, because the sign is probably designed to keep dangerous vehicles out of a park filled with pedestrians. A tricycle, on the other hand, is small and incapable of great speed, meaning it likely isn't the kind of "vehicle" the sign-makers anticipated. On the other hand, it is clearly a means of transportation for John, and so by the sign's plain meaning his tricycle is probably prohibited. Additionally, if a tricycle didn't count as a vehicle for purposes of the sign, then it might leave ambiguity about what vehicles counted if the plain meaning couldn't be used, which could lead to people being confused on other fringe cases. And while tricycles are smaller than cars, they do still pose danger relative to pedestrians. in fact, because they are quieter than cars or other motorized vehicles, they may present even greater danger to pedestrians who can't hear well or who might not be paying attention. They also tend to be operated by children who may pose a greater danger to them than adults and the vehicles they tend to operate.

John may argue that because it's a park, a tricycle and other recreational vehicles are actually the kind of things designed to be in the park -- and protected from other, large vehicles. Parks are traditionally places where children gather to play and tricycles are traditionally viewed as toys and not as vehicles. Much like a matchbox car might bear many of the attributes of a car, most wouldn't consider a vehicle or subject to regulations regarding larger and more standard means of transportation.

Finally, the facts state that John entered the park with the tricycle but not on it. If he's only pushing it or carrying it, there's a much better argument to be made that it's not being used as a vehicle and thus does not violate the sign. Much as a person could walk through the park with a boxed bicycle under their arm, being in possession of something that could be used as a vehicle likely isn't the same thing as operating one. The park owners are likely more concerned with the uses of vehicles being operated than with their presence for any reason.

This is probably overkill, but you could likely write more if you wanted to. You need to use judgement to figure out when to move on, but being thorough and fleshing things out are how you spot the same issues as your classmates but wind up with more points.

Notice that it doesn't really look like IRAC and never even really comes to a conclusion. Professor styles and desires vary, but usually all of the points are in the analysis.

- - - - - - - - - -

First observation - the law here is literally one sentence, but you can still see a lot of variation. Second, all three answers spotted the issue, but one is getting way more points for it than the others. Lastly, there is no need to spend time restating the law or the facts when you're actively applying them.

But do you see how much you can come up with to say while forming arguments and counter arguments even when the law is simple? That's how you get points on exams. You muck around in the gray areas, and you show that you're capable of marshaling the facts given and the policies behind the rules to show how things could turn out. The exam will certainly have far more facts, and you should do your best to come up with some way for each fact to be legally operative. If you had facts about the nature of the park, the nature of the tricycle, the purpose behind the sign, etc. that could all go into fleshing it out even further.

Good luck, and remember that what you do on the exam is going to matter much more than how furiously you study the laws, so long as you do enough studying of the law

[thesealocust]

Just got done writing my answer to a sample problem for torts.

Then I guess it's not too early for this:
(I take no credit for this, but I don't remember where I got it from )

{example}

I really hope you're trying to be clever here, because I wrote that

[guano]

Just got done writing my answer to a sample problem for torts.

Then I guess it's not too early for this:
(I take no credit for this, but I don't remember where I got it from)

{example}

I really hope you're trying to be clever here, because I wrote that

I'm not that clever

[nickb285]

.

[thesealocust]

Do professors actually have the expectation that you won't finish the exam?

Correct - at least, they don't expect you to have enough time to fully explore each question. They certainly expect you to WORK on each question, you'll do quite poorly if you only look at 3 of 4 essays.

Professors have admitted publicly to writing exams they themselves wouldn't feel comfortable completing in the allotted time.

Welcome to law school!

I know this is the anxiety thread, and I don't mean to increase anxiety - the idea is that if you KNOW the task is supposed to be insurmountable, hopefully you can be more at ease. When you rush and don't feel like you completed everything on the exam, remember that everyone else feels that way too. It's all going according to (an admittedly somewhat ghastly) plan.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, it's an easy way to force a curve. I think profs' worst nightmare is when everyone in the class gets essentially the same points - how do you rank the exams? In a racecourse issue spotter, you can let people's natural speed in reading/analysis/writing do some of the work. (And of course, the better you know the material, the quicker you can answer, compared to someone who's checking things in their outline, so it tests preparation somewhat.) Ironically, the profs I had who wrote the most racecourse-y exams were the best profs who'd made everything really clear. If the material is impossible and everyone's confused you can write a really short exam and still get a good curve.

[nickb285]

.

[guano]

Correct - at least, they don't expect you to have enough time to fully explore each question. They certainly expect you to WORK on each question, you'll do quite poorly if you only look at 3 of 4 essays.

Professors have admitted publicly to writing exams they themselves wouldn't feel comfortable completing in the allotted time.

Welcome to law school!

I know this is the anxiety thread, and I don't mean to increase anxiety - the idea is that if you KNOW the task is supposed to be insurmountable, hopefully you can be more at ease. When you rush and don't feel like you completed everything on the exam, remember that everyone else feels that way too. It's all going according to (an admittedly somewhat ghastly) plan.

That actually does help. I still think it's a dumb way to do things, but it's better than thinking I have to cram 2+ hours of analysis into 45 minutes of test or fail.

If you're at a decent law school, you get a C- just for making a good faith effort.
Cramming 2+ hours of analysis into 45 minutes gets you an A+

[sublime]

..

[Lawst]

I love that this thread is here. 1L was so unnecessarily stressful. Now that I'm finishing my last year, I have perspective. Law school will always be a lot of work, but you won't always feel this incredibly stressed out. It's gonna be OK. And you can spend winter break sleeping for days and days.

[espressocream]

Today was my first real freak out day, in my conference my memo got torn apart, I have another conference with the TA on friday and need to pretty much rewrite my memo to get anything useful out of it, and for the first time this semester I'm completely lost in contracts....HELP I AM FREAKING OUT.

If it makes you feel better, when she tore mine apart was my first real freakout too.

I just got my first one back....graded.

I GOT THE LAW WRONG. WHO DOES THAT?! apparently I do.

Totally fucked it up. It's been a week of real stress...I want to go back to orientation week.

[desiballa21]

Today was my first real freak out day, in my conference my memo got torn apart, I have another conference with the TA on friday and need to pretty much rewrite my memo to get anything useful out of it, and for the first time this semester I'm completely lost in contracts....HELP I AM FREAKING OUT.

If it makes you feel better, when she tore mine apart was my first real freakout too.

I just got my first one back....graded.

I GOT THE LAW WRONG. WHO DOES THAT?! apparently I do.

Totally fucked it up. It's been a week of real stress...I want to go back to orientation week.

drink

[thesealocust]

+1. Drink.

You're supposed to run face-first into the wall on your first memo, and a lot of the stuff you do as a new 1L (and as I'm finding out, as a new lawyer!). It's all part of the process.

The first step to being kinda-good at something is being comically awful at something. It is the way of things.